Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection

ericmitchell.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 71 posts

Re: DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection

#61

Post by fernly »

pelasaco wrote: post #28

> For example, students may use LLMs to complete written assignments, leaving instructors unable to accurately assess student learning. I'm one student using GPT to write my written assignments, and I cannot understand what is the issue with that. Even though it enhances the quality of my text, I cannot just copy, paste, submit and profit. I still have to understand what is being written. My workflow is normally the…

See the more recent comment here by @skissane about using chatGPT to write fiction. Process sounds quite similar.

Re: DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection

#62

Post by panarky »

sublinear wrote: post #52
Teever wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, now you're getting it. What happens when the AI can write itself? What happens when it can design its own hardware? And assemble it? What have we created when it is fully capable of self replication?

Stagnant crap nobody wants?

AI can detect pancreatic cancer better than the best radiologists. The belief that machine learning cannot surpass human intelligence is contrary to the evidence.

Re: DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection

#63

Post by EGreg »

chrisshroba wrote: post #40
sublinear wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm still gonna chose my AI consultant over you in 5-10 years. AI will never replace experts. Someone still has to curate the firehose of information returned. What's the point then? AI can only interpolate a response from internet sources, and claims of plagiarism are already coming hard. The internet was never a good source of expertise.

If an AI can be trained on the internet, it can be trained on a textbook or lecture notes. I think it’s shortsighted to insist that AI won’t replace experts based on the training sets that AIs are currently being trained on.

That’s what Wall street said about expert traders. And then replaced them all with bots and gave the capital to the bots to be traded.

I remember when Garry Kasparov insisted that centaurs -- computer+human — do better than just a computer or just a human. He held out longer than most in this belief. But seriously… can you name a field where computers and bots can NEVER beat humans?

Re: DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection

#64

Post by robotresearcher »

sublinear wrote: post #29
lostoldsession wrote: post #18

Is there really something of value to be had by fighting a war against the coming tide of AI that can spit out whatever you ask for? To me it looks like old world professors calling the council because the abacus is under threat by the calculator, and we need to ensure the students are absolutely not using the calculator for their abacus studies. This all being despite the fact that society at large is moving as fast…

> I'm still gonna chose my AI consultant over you in 5-10 years. AI will never replace experts. Someone still has to curate the firehose of information returned. What's the point then? AI can only interpolate a response from internet sources, and claims of plagiarism are already coming hard. The internet was never a good source of expertise.

It already has in several useful, practical ways.

Experts used to evaluate your credit application. Experts would adjust depth of field in portrait photography, and bracketed exposure in HDR photography. Experts would beat you at chess.

AI now does the majority of instances of these things and many more. Not every instance, so you can say that experts have not been completely replaced, but they have been substantially replaced.

As for ‘can only interpolate a response from internet sources’, first, there’s no requirement that training data comes from the internet, and second, if the AI has learned the correct function, ‘interpolation’ is not a criticism.

Re: DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection

#65

Post by sublinear »

tarkin2 wrote: post #58
sublinear wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is ever going to ship unreviewed code. It doesn't matter if a human or a robot wrote it. Someone also has to write acceptance criteria beyond a mere prompt for a chat bot. Someone has to approve it all, and it's not going to be a non-technical person. Someone also has to test it. Someone also has to integrate it with the rest of the solution. Code has dependencies and you can't manage all of them with AI alone…

I think you overestimate how a lot of software is and, in particular, will be created.

Good then their code will be even shittier than it already is.

Re: DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection

#66

Post by sublinear »

EGreg wrote: post #63
chrisshroba wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If an AI can be trained on the internet, it can be trained on a textbook or lecture notes. I think it’s shortsighted to insist that AI won’t replace experts based on the training sets that AIs are currently being trained on.

That’s what Wall street said about expert traders. And then replaced them all with bots and gave the capital to the bots to be traded. I remember when Garry Kasparov insisted that centaurs -- computer+human — do better than just a computer or just a human. He held out longer than most in this belief. But seriously… can you name a field where computers and bots can NEVER beat humans?

Any topic where being an expert is not mere memorization or imitation without comprehension, and discovering new facts is not just relentlessly churning through a rule set and producing what was already self-evident.

I don't disagree whether computers are good at computation. That's what they're for. I disagree that AI can replace experts because expertise is a moving target.

Where AI approximates a response given at some point in time or within a range of time written by a crowd of people who are not necessarily experts, experts must inevitably contradict themselves on something and update their theories. AI as currently implemented will always lag behind human experts.

In other words, do you seriously believe that an AI trained on scientific publications from the middle ages would eventually rediscover what we know now and beyond? I think it would be stuck forever hallucinating recipes to turn lead into gold.

Re: DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection

#67

Post by pelasaco »

spikej wrote: post #31
pelasaco wrote: post #28

> For example, students may use LLMs to complete written assignments, leaving instructors unable to accurately assess student learning. I'm one student using GPT to write my written assignments, and I cannot understand what is the issue with that. Even though it enhances the quality of my text, I cannot just copy, paste, submit and profit. I still have to understand what is being written. My workflow is normally the…

The problem is that people aren't doing what you're doing, and ARE just copy/pasting whatever gets spit out. Using it to enhance your wording + thoughts is absolutely the way to make use of these tools.

Ok, but it's worse than copy and paste from internet, because not every thing that chatgpt writes make sense. Longer the output, higher the chances that it doesn't make sense.

Re: DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection

#68

Post by pelasaco »

majormajor wrote: post #43
pelasaco wrote: post #28

> For example, students may use LLMs to complete written assignments, leaving instructors unable to accurately assess student learning. I'm one student using GPT to write my written assignments, and I cannot understand what is the issue with that. Even though it enhances the quality of my text, I cannot just copy, paste, submit and profit. I still have to understand what is being written. My workflow is normally the…

Honestly this doesn't sound like any less work than just reading the sources and writing it myself in the first place. You seem to be doing just as much revising and writing, with a LOT more "read and re-read."

Yes, maybe because I'm studying because I want, as hobby,but in another hand,in my university the last examination, each semester, is oral, so if you don't know, you fail. So I have to learn.

Re: DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection

#69

Post by pelasaco »

fernly wrote: post #61
pelasaco wrote: post #28

> For example, students may use LLMs to complete written assignments, leaving instructors unable to accurately assess student learning. I'm one student using GPT to write my written assignments, and I cannot understand what is the issue with that. Even though it enhances the quality of my text, I cannot just copy, paste, submit and profit. I still have to understand what is being written. My workflow is normally the…

See the more recent comment here by @skissane about using chatGPT to write fiction. Process sounds quite similar.

As would be with code too. You have to validate the code, integrate it to your codebase and understand it,since soon or later you will have to debug it in production

Re: DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection

#70

Post by oaktrout »

panarky wrote: post #62
sublinear wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stagnant crap nobody wants?

AI can detect pancreatic cancer better than the best radiologists. The belief that machine learning cannot surpass human intelligence is contrary to the evidence.

Citation for your pancreatic cancer claim? I am skeptical, or perhaps we have different definitions of better.
Post reply on HN